<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (12) TMI 1266 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372497</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s orders that deleted additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Emphasizing the necessity of incriminating material for such additions under Section 153A, the Tribunal referenced the judgment in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. It concluded that the Revenue did not prove the additions were supported by incriminating material, thus justifying the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2018 08:32:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1266 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372497</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s orders that deleted additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Emphasizing the necessity of incriminating material for such additions under Section 153A, the Tribunal referenced the judgment in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. It concluded that the Revenue did not prove the additions were supported by incriminating material, thus justifying the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>